B-2: The Spirit of Innovation - 100 page PDF 6.6Mb

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22995
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Dec 2017, 11:11

B-2: The Spirit of Innovation
29 Dec 2017 Aviation Archives

"A Northrop company produced brochure on the B-2 Bomber. Written by Rebeccxa Grant. Dated May 2013. The history & development of the Northrop Grumman B-2 bomber project. Credit: Bill Simone" [more about VLO than you need to know]

Cover Photo: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jYfo ... vation_013

PDF: https://www.filefactory.com/file/7ancr6 ... vation.pdf (6.6Mb)

Source: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.au ... ation.html
Attachments
B-2-Spirit-of-Innovation_013.jpg
B-2headOn.jpg
B-2redesignedPlanForm.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7690
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post23 Jan 2018, 04:11

Article on the B-2 and the extensive use of composites in it's construction. Includes a remarkable video of the wings flexing in flight.

https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/29/t ... -it-means/

This remarkable video of a Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber undergoing wing flutter testing on June 14, 1995 is fascinating for a number of reasons.

All aircraft wings have a remarkable capacity for flex. But one of the most significant changes in aircraft engineering in the last three decades has been the addition of composite materials, especially carbon fibers, into aircraft structural design. In many cases these composite materials have replaced metal alloys in structural components on advanced aircraft.

The B-2 Spirit is approximately 80% composite, mostly carbon fiber. Some of the structural framework internal to the B-2, especially where the wing blends into the fuselage and the largest fuel tanks are located, is titanium and aluminum. While part of the reason for this is structural, another reason is that composites, being made up of a number of different elements, can have radar absorbent materials included in their manufacture or “lay-up” during the process of combining materials into a composite.

There are many reasons composite materials, or materials made up of a combination of advanced materials including metals, polymers (plastics) and carbon atoms at the most elemental level, have become so common in aviation engineering.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post02 Feb 2019, 09:28

Students from Knob Noster High School near Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, designed this plastic cover for an important switch box inside the B-2 Spirit bomber to help prevent accidental flight emergencies The cover now is used in all operational B-2s at Whiteman, as well as the aircraft's simulators.

https://www.stripes.com/news/students-d ... s-1.566742

Image
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 17:42

New Air Force B-2 "Earth Penetrating" Nuclear Weapon Changes Combat Strategy

https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/ai ... mMmzEegDg/

The B61 Mod 12 is engineered with a special “Tail Subassembly” to give the bomb increased accuracy, giving a new level of precision targeting using Inertial Navigation Systems, Kristensen said.

“Right now the B-2 carries only B61-7 (10-360 kt), B61-11(400 kt, earth-penetrator), and B83-1 (high-yield bunker-buster). The B61-12 covers all of those missions, with less radioactive fallout, plus very low-yield attacks,” he added.

The evidence that the B61-12 can penetrate below the surface has significant implications for the types of targets that can be held at risk with the bomb.

By bringing an “earth-penetrating” component, the B61-12 vastly increases the target scope or envelope of attack. It can enable more narrowly targeted or pinpointed strikes at high-value targets underground - without causing anywhere near the same level of devastation above ground or across a wider area.

“A nuclear weapon that detonates after penetrating the earth more efficiently transmits its explosive energy to the ground, thus is more effective at destroying deeply buried targets for a given nuclear yield. A detonation above ground, in contrast, results in a largler fraction of the explosive energy bouncing off the surface,” Kristensen explained.

The B-2 is getting improved digital weapons integration, new computer processing power reported to be 1,000-times faster than existing systems and next-generation sensors designed to help the aircraft avoid enemy air defenses ...
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5306
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Feb 2019, 18:40

Now they just need to stuff a W83 into a MOP casing.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1124
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 07:48

A 700 lb bomb casing that goes lets say 20 m deep isn't going to shock-couple much with the surrounding soil and rocks. Not useless but also not that much better than a ground-burst. But what it should result in is a cloud that doesn't go as high, plus throws out a lot more highly radioactive dirt and rock within 1 kilometer than a ground burst would, which is maybe part of the intent. That would work great against a naval base, air base, tank farm or a sprawling weapon factory, or even an underground factory, to put it out of action. While limiting the damage radius.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5306
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 12:47

element1loop wrote:A 700 lb bomb casing that goes lets say 20 m deep isn't going to shock-couple much with the surrounding soil and rocks. Not useless but also not that much better than a ground-burst. But what it should result in is a cloud that doesn't go as high, plus throws out a lot more highly radioactive dirt and rock within 1 kilometer than a ground burst would, which is maybe part of the intent. That would work great against a naval base, air base, tank farm or a sprawling weapon factory, or even an underground factory, to put it out of action. While limiting the damage radius.


But a 28,000lb case with 1-2 Mt of sunshine in the front might. :-) With a nuclear package the case itself could be much narrower in diameter, with a subsequent increase in penetration. (MOP supposedly is already good for 200+ feet in hard dirt.) Right now, MOP is closer to "Amazon" than "Disney":

Slide4.JPG


Current MOP penetrator could probably be narrower with the nuke:

279630.jpg


B83

CJZhuDaUMAA3LgK.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1124
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post08 Feb 2019, 13:42

sferrin wrote:
element1loop wrote:A 700 lb bomb casing that goes lets say 20 m deep isn't going to shock-couple much with the surrounding soil and rocks. Not useless but also not that much better than a ground-burst. But what it should result in is a cloud that doesn't go as high, plus throws out a lot more highly radioactive dirt and rock within 1 kilometer than a ground burst would, which is maybe part of the intent. That would work great against a naval base, air base, tank farm or a sprawling weapon factory, or even an underground factory, to put it out of action. While limiting the damage radius.


But a 28,000lb case with 1-2 Mt of sunshine in the front might. :-) With a nuclear package the case itself could be much narrower in diameter, with a subsequent increase in penetration. (MOP supposedly is already good for 200+ feet in hard dirt.) Right now, MOP is closer to "Amazon" than "Disney":

Slide4.JPG


Current MOP penetrator could probably be narrower with the nuke:

279630.jpg


B83

CJZhuDaUMAA3LgK.jpg


:mrgreen: Yes, that would do it ... I'm wondering what you want to hit with >1.2 Mt? :mrgreen:

Perhaps a very narrow case (~600 mm), hard-tipped, full of DU for the mass, with a rocket booster, but still short enough to fit in the B21's weapon bay. That should get it done. :devil:
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5496
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 03:57

Crazy idea but considering the USAF plans on retiring the B-2. Could they be converted to a long range Stealthy Tanker??? Wouldn't be a cheap option and limited numbers. Yet, they're available and could offer considerable value in the role!
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 18:27

Not a bad idea. Plenty of fuel and stealth and ESM/ECM. Change the weapons bay to fit a recessed boom and perhaps even more fuel and you are good to go. Probably very expensive to maintain and who knows how much service life they have left but still not a dumb idea because you would only need it to get safely just outside a target's known defences.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5496
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 02:21

marsavian wrote:Not a bad idea. Plenty of fuel and stealth and ESM/ECM. Change the weapons bay to fit a recessed boom and perhaps even more fuel and you are good to go. Probably very expensive to maintain and who knows how much service life they have left but still not a dumb idea because you would only need it to get safely just outside a target's known defences.


Well, could be a short term option. As I am sure it would be an expensive under taking. Yet, when you need tanker support up close to accomplish a critical mission. It maybe worth the cost....

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests